Mixed economies vs Command economies is one thing. I won't discuss that. But market economies are fucking retarded. Not one state has ever developed industry with a full market economy. All industrial development has been done involving government direction and/or protectionism.

It was also believed at the time of our founding fathers that the only ones entitled to vote were white men.

As time goes by the right to vote has expanded to all races and genders. Now this didnt mean that the founding fathers were anti voting, they were just for the voting rights of all those considered "people" back then,just like we defend the voting rights of all those considered "people" now,just not felons.

It's the spirit of the law that matters.

>Imperialists imperialise Libya
>Imperialists get buttimperialised when their embassy is attacked
>Imperialists blame other imperialists in a shitty two-party system because half of the imperialists are still buttimperialised about Obama

Oh, you said bias-free. Sorry.

I honestly just wanted to use 'buttimperialised' a few times.

And that is why you shouldn't get involved in countries that function perfectly fine.

Eh, I wouldn't say Libya was fine. But the intervention was shitty, and the 'support for a popular uprising against tyranny' or whatever the fuck was simply a cover for an economic agenda.

It was a lot better off before that's for certain, all this gold dinar probably upset murrica enough, it's funny they've pretty much degenerated back to warring tribes level, all because they believed some stupid notions of liberty.

Terrorists attacked a US embassy and killed 4 Americans including the ambassador. Not much else to say about the actual attack; it's the political war that's significant.

The Obama ad.ministration screwed up then lied about to make themselves look better. The republicans found out and are using it to try and knock Hillary Clinton out of the presidential race of 2016 because she'd probably win the democratic primaries.

How'd they lie?

The bureaucrats in the state department dismissed the act as a disorderly protest against a movie, (The Innocence of Muslims) which is shown by them having edited the talking points for Benghazi via email to erase any mention of terrorism. Of course, that movie was a non-issue in Libya, despite its offensive portrayal of Islam by a Jewish director. After the attack, at great risk to his own life, the Libyan President went to Benghazi to affirm that it was indeed a terrorist attack, although Rice would have none of it and insulted him on the national stage. This helped the election of Obama because it prevented immediate controversy. Mitt Romney was unable to bring up the attack in the last debate because of how it was portrayed as being void of organized terrorism.

They lied about not being able to send military personal to Benghazi, which would have been able to get there in 3 hours from mainland Europe at command; the attack lasted 6-8 hours or so. Fundamentally, they did nothing as the consulat was under attack. Obama, when he heard of what was transpiring, did not take interest and instead told his cabinet to head operations, which is now known (despite the fact that the White House released a supposed photo of Obama reacting to the attack by sitting on a couch with a frown). The next day he went to Las Vegas for a campaign fundraiser.

I haven't been following the issue, but I thought there were actual protests against the movie which happened to coincide with the terrorist attack on the embassy. Am I wrong?

Apparently it came out of somebody's ass. Hicks, deputy chief of mission in Libya during the attacks, testified less than a week ago that the video was a non-issue in Libya.

Hicks, who had a demotion in ranking, claims that the Obama DJ 4DM1Nistration is punishing him for whistleblowing.

Ohai.

Why would we nuke the Soviet Union Russia? Or anyone for that matter?

NATO refused to sign a treaty saying they'd never fire nukes first, because they were concerned about being overwhelmed by the Warsaw Pact. The Warsaw Pact states had a much larger combined military force than NATO at the time.

I fucked my ass there...

You're doing it wrong

>no caps
>no bold
>no underline

yeah, you fucked up

Last September there was an attack on the US embassy in Libya where the ambassador and 3 other Americans were killed. During the attack, there were soldiers ready and willing to help the embassy but they were ordered to stand down. Immediately after the attack, it was reported that the attack was a spontaneous outrage in response to a very offensive anti-Islamic video. We now know that the attack was premeditated and done by a terrorist group with ties to Al-Qaeda and the attack had nothing to do with the video. We also know that it was originally planned to be reported as a terrorist attack but the report was changed. This attack happened 2 months before the presidential election.

Basically the ad.ministration "fell asleep at the wheel" then lied about it so they wouldn't look bad in order to win the election.

Ah. So it was done by terrorists, but the gov't allowed it to happen.

I wouldn't say allowed it to happen but they were pretty careless about it. But them lying about it to make themselves look better to win the election is what I think so many people have a problem with.

Also Hillary Clinton is probably gonna run for prez in 2016 and a lot of people do not want to that so that kinda plays a part in this whole thing. (She was the secretary of state at the time so it was kind of her fault.)

If HC wins because she's a woman I will be pissed beyond belief. Just as the black community voted for Obama, I guarantee a lot of woman will. I don't follow US politics, so who do you think will run for the Repubs?

?

sales tax in california went up

He was born in Hawaii. Climate change is real. Rape does cause pregnancy. Evolution is proven. Nobody is taking away anybody's guns, the deficit is dropping (www.davemanuel.com/history-of-deficits-and-surpluses-in-the-united-state s.php), moon landing is real, i don't know shit about Benghazi, saddam hussein didn't have nuclear weapons, fema isn't building concentration camps.

>I don't really care where Obama was born. It's just Republican butthurt.
>Indeed.
>Indeed.
>Indeed.
>I don't know, and little do I care.
>It's a step towards disarmament. I don't like it. Not at all.
>I don't know, I'm not American, I don't know what your tax rates are.
>I think I've heard this, but I don't know for a fact.
>Indeed.
>Probably. Doesn't matter, the Soviets still won the space race.
>I love this conspiracy theory. I doubt it's credible, but it's interesting nonetheless.
>I'm sorry? What's this?
>Indeed they are not. But there shouldn't be a private insurance industry or financial services sector anyway.

Reply limit reached on the other thing.

If the NEP was introduced to build socialism later then it was no longer a workers state.

But we all really know it never was. Workers councils that hold no real power? C'mon, man.

The young workers' state was the vanguard against capitalism, with all its flaws. As such, it was worth protecting, and therefore appropriate measures were justified, especially considering Lenin was preparing to remove the measures dictated necessary by war.

Sorry. That's weaponized ideology and it's been demonized by Marx. It's a tool.

She looks like a guy

>foolish regulations on things that do not significantly affect climate change is a huge drain on the economy
>Benghazi was a scandal; they knew the truth but decided not to tell it so Obama could win his second term
>I do not currently own an AR-15 but I plan on buying one in the future. People are trying to ban transfers of AR-15s. Therefore they're trying to take away my AR-15.
>taxes are around 50% including state and local taxes which means the public is funding a wasteful government instead of investing in things that could better benefit the economy
>the deficit is not dropping; government spending is still out of control
>if one person's hard-earned money pays for something for someone else, that is communism

This woman is a fucktard

All other things aside, your last bullet point describes all taxes (it also describes gifts, which I'm sure you didn't intend). Taxes most certainly are not communism and do not have anything do with communism. Just ask any of the Communists on this board.

Governments are made by the people for the benefit of all society. Things like security, food quality regulation, trade oversight, and roads are all public goods that every gets to use. It's a community working together as a whole for the greater good. Government is by its nature communistic.

gifts are entirely voluntary so they don't count

>Government is by its nature communistic

Shit nigger. Communism is a stateless society. I think the word you're looking for is 'socialistic' but even that is wrong. Socialism is a different mode of production to capitalism.

I would agree that a government's role should be to protect its people from external threats, internal threats, AND from hunger and cold, etc, but that's not socialist. Socialism, as I said, is a mode of production. Current governments, however, don't fulfill that role. Governments of liberal democracies are nothing more than an extension of bourgeoisie power.

If communism is supposed to be stateless then it is just a naive fantasy version of anarchy that ignores man's selfish disposition.
Governments form when a community gets together and pools their resources to protect the welfare of the community as a whole. It is not forced equality like socialism. That is what a true government is; how is that not communistic?

Governments today have grown beyond the power they were given by the community and have become corrupt because they are made up of selfish people who act for selfish reasons.

pic related: when I get to dine alone

Socialism isn't about forced equality. Nor is communism.

'To each according to his contribution' is clear. 'To each according to his needs' is often misunderstood, but simply: no one's ability is equal, why are their needs and wants?

Anarchists don't understand that state power has to be seized before communism can be achieved. That's the difference between us and them.

Finally: socialism and communism are not about redistribution of wealth. Redistribution is a temporary fix for the capitalist system. We believe that communism and socialism will remove the need for redistribution.

Also, "to each according to his contribution" is pre-marxian at best. It's a joke.

It was recuperated by Lenin later on to justify his Bolshevik ideology.

The difference between Anarchists and Communists is not actually about who-takes-the-state-and-does-what. tr00 communists will abolish the state in favour of workers communes in a localized fashion.

The difference is their framework of analysis; anarchists will generally argue from an ethical standpoint where Marxists analysis consists of dialectics. Marxists and Anarchists have a lot more in common than tr00 marxists and Leninists. The only REAL reason people think there is this huge rift between Anarchism and Marxism is because of a feud between Bakunin (who is a drip) and Marx. Bakunin was advocated that people will receive goods in accordance to the difficulty of their labour, and Marx argued that this perpetuates the wage system and therefore is counter revolutionary (for lack of a better work, I'm fucking sleepy).

It's also worth mentioning that the whole 'dictatorship of the proletariat' was mentioned by Marx very few times in his work. And it isn't even in roman connotation of the word, anyways. So when communists talk about seizing the state, I laugh, because all that does is perpetuate a revolution that is more similar to the age of enlightenment than anything else (middle class employs the lower class to kill off the upper class, and the middle class becomes the new upper class, and the lower classes stay low).

It's sectarian nonsense. As is arguing about Lenin.

The fact is that the state is necessary to be seized, and the dictatorship of the proletariat to replace that of the bourgeoisie. In what form the dictatorship of the proletariat takes is irrelevant, really, in what we're discussing. The point is you can't simply have achieved the world revolution, and immediately abolish the state and enter communism.

But again, this is sectarian nonsense.

And one thing I find extra hilarious is how the greatest spontaneous self-organization of workers was crushed by the soviet union. They pop up everywhere every now and then, which is the right way to go. Occupy factories, towns, points of trade and commerce. Bring the economy down.

Arm yourselves when tanks show up. You think a Vanguard can do any of that? A vanguard is tyranny. In revolution, create the type of society you want to live in while you are fighting. Military discipline will only breed boring, robotic wage slaves.

"While betraying this lack of thoughtfulness, Comrade Trotsky falls into error himself. He seems to say that in a workers’ state it is not the business of the trade unions to stand up for the material and spiritual interests of the working class. That is a mistake."

Like I said in the other post, I feel you're criticising Stalin more so than Lenin.

As for vanguardism, I've been looking more into Rosa Luxemburg's writings, so I'd prefer not to comment just yet.

Rosa Luxemburg is good but I find she's TOO spontaneous.

Still better than Lenin. Or all the Soviet pigs.

That's kind of a cop-out, man.

Bolshevism doesn't work. It reproduces the capitalist mode of production and gets caught in a vicious circle.

Sure, the state must be 'seized' but it is also radically transformed. It is not the same state that existed before hand. You reorganize it into a democratized, decentralized collective.

And, like I said, the dictatorship is a minor part of Marx's work and there is only attention to it because of the Soviets, which does NOT give it any merit whatsoever. Everything that happened to the soviet union is exactly why their methodology & socialism in one country and completely and utterly useless.

These are more criticisms to be directed towards Stalin, not Lenin.

Indeed, Lenin spoke of the alien nature of the state apparatus the Bolsheviks merely took over:

"Did it not come from that same Russian apparatus which, as I pointed out in one of the preceding sections of my diary, we took over from tsarism and slightly anointed with Soviet oil?

There is no doubt that that measure should have been delayed somewhat until we could say that we vouched for our apparatus as our own. But now, we must, in all conscience, admit the contrary; the apparatus we call ours is, in fact, still quite alien to us; it is a bourgeois and tsarist hotch-potch and there has been no possibility of getting rid of it in the course of the past five years without the help of other countries and because we have been "busy" most of the time with military engagements and the fight against famine."

As he said, the government was busy with military engagements, and the economic repercussions of said engagements. Saying that, there were indications that Lenin was preparing to ease up on the authoritarian measures dictated necessary by counterrevolutionaries.

Further is the claim that Bolshevism doesn't work. I feel that's a little bit of a cop-out. Lenin, believing that socialism in one country doesn't work, introduced the NEP (partly because war communism wasn't intended to last forever, and Russia wasn't industrialised and therefore hadn't achieved mature capitalism, etc) due to the failure of socialist revolution in Germany and other states. And since socialism in one country was something Stalin originally thought of as rubbish, it's difficult to say that socialism in one country really was Bolshevism.

NEC = state capitalism, which is precisely why Bolshevism is quite silly. It is the complete negation of economic determinism.

Bolshevism is inherently authoritarian. Democratic centralism is a joke.

The party took what happened in 1905 and ruined it. They were opportunists, which Lenin sharply critiqued. Kind of funny how he contradicts himself.

NEP is more or less state capitalism, but what of it? Lenin said quite openly state-capitalism.

State capitalism needs to be overthrown.

The thing is both the bureaucracy and the capitalists of the 'west' used spectacular means to perpetuate their ideologies. Both were just different manifests of capitalism which needed to be destroyed. Lenin's ideology was a warped adaptation of Marxism which betrayed several key concepts.

The alternative of the NEP was return to the provisional republic, or go ahead with socialism in one country. I doubt you'll agree with either.

So the NEP was really the only viable option if the young workers' state were to continue its existence.

It wasn't a workers state though

It was an oligarchy

Nonsense, arisaka. Indeed, there were measures taken that weren't desirable, but they were necessary, considering war and foreign intervention. But it was far as oligarchy, and was definitely a young workers' state, albeit with a bureaucratic twist, which Lenin highlighted to avoid anything stupid being done (like disbanding trade unions as Trotsky wanted).

dude

Lenin violated the sanctity of democratic workers councils

thats fucked up

he was a butthurt little turdmonkey who may have been an okay dialectical materialist, but that's where his legacy ends.

Taking necessary measures, or allowing the Whites to win, and return to Tsarism.

That's a red herring. There were many other ways things could have worked out.

And it was obvious Russia wasn't ready for socialism but that prick went through with it anyways, with his warped idealism. There's a little something called 'economic determinism'. He violated basic Marxist theory.

You know why he needed a vanguard party? Because the proletariat hadn't been developed enough. (also he thought they were stupid. fuck him).
You know why the proletariat wasn't developed? Because most of the population were still peasants.
You know why most of the population were part of the peasant class? Because there weren't many factories.
You know why there weren't many factories? Because capitalism hadn't centralized people into urban environments in mass numbers yet.

Lenin was basically one of those kids who makes up all these stupid house rules when you play Sorry (best canadian game).

Lenin recognised that socialism could not be built in Russia under the conditions it was in. That's why the NEP was introduced - to enable socialism to be built later on.

*advocating

fuck my life I need sleep.

"To each according to their contribution."

................. that's capitalism

A hedge fund manager doesn't contribute to society the same amount as thousands of doctors do.

And how would you measure such contribution?
There is obviously a demand for these managers, more so than for doctors.

The managers aren't necessary for a society to function. Doctors are necessary.

Coca-Cola isn't necessary for society to function either but people still want it therefore it exists.
Wise investing funds the growth of new firms that offer goods or services that people want. By helping these firms grow, people's wants are satisfied (more or less) and more jobs are created. These people do contribute to the economy; there are just not very many of them so they get paid quite a bit. Much like professional athletes, they don't directly contribute to the economy but by doing what they do, the help HDTV firms, boneless chicken wing producers, chicken farmers, chip producers, clothing producers, etc all grow when they have millions of people willing to spend money.

I forgot to respond, but Arisaka brought me back here.

Anon is right. Managers aren't necessary for companies like Coca-Cola to function. Simply put, the workers can manage their own affairs. It's just a different form of organisation.

yes they are

Lol, why?

It doesn't matter who owns the company or who gives the orders; there always has to be someone to "crack the whip"

And I was anon, except I couldn't log in for being in a shitty computer at the time I made this comment.

My point is: Industrial democracy, nigga.

"Communism" generally refers to a system in which all property, or all means of production, is owned collectively by society rather than privately by individuals. Or it's the ideology that supports such a system. That's what Maddow meant, and that's typically what opponents of certain liberal policies are referring to.

You evidently meant it in a different sense.

>Benghazi isn't a scandal
>Taxes haven't gone up
>Deficit is actually dropping
>Moderate reforms
>Nobody is taking away anyone's guns

>moon landing was real

I don't get it, it seems like the musings of a goat on acid, geared towards people who fear big government, I don't even know what I'm meant to infer from this.

The logo of an imperialist organisation with the flags of imperial states.

idk, things seem pretty nice up here in Canada. But what do I know, I'm Canadian, so I'm obviously a treehugger Nazi commie Jew.

The German Empire had a pension system, other empires didn't. Doesn't make them any less imperialist.

We're having provincial elections today. Right in my school, too. Doesn't seem all that imperialist to me (But maybe I just wasn't around for the whipping and chains and torture).

Provincial elections, in which you vote for a moderate party that brings about no real change, just 'reform'. You don't treat the symptoms, you treat the illness.

Indeed, there's no whips and chains and torture in your provincial elections, but I think those in the war zones created by imperialist states - including Canada - would beg to differ.

I agree that something's wrong in the government (something something 1%), yet I think you're going a it far in calling it imperialist. Maybe wait a decade or some when USA makes monarchy or some shit a fad.

You can be 'democratic' and imperial.

And I don't think Canada is quite there yet.

someone doesnt know how to save images. or even create images.

How is this a GIF?

Did you possibly get it off 4chan? A lot of things there autosave as gifs, I don't know why tho.

that's a good question

btw have this, it's cooler, more image, better flags, clearer

damn oppressive governments.

Indeed.

A large portion is actually simple softcore stuff. And gifs.

I do have a few involving Swastikas, though.

I think I'm going to make this my avatar.

and so he did

It's a little different now.

I changed mine to. I like it very much.

Ha, even the word "vive" wants to occupy the factory.

Bringing dat revolut'n to erryday lyfe

holla holla get dollas

Fo' shizzle mah comradizzle.

Butthurt Jews rallying retarded peasants who just learned how to read to their insane radical doctrines. Imagine a world without Social Democraps...

But why did i get thumbed do so much, what did i do wrong?

Stupid stalinist bullshit.

No flags necessary. Ideology is an old tool.

All we need is comradery.

Fair point.

Flags are an important rallying point, though. Whether or not the hammer and sickle is outdated is another thing.

Plus, flags are just cool to look at. Like the Turkish flag. Such a brilliant flag. And the French. One of the few tricolours I like, and only in that order and with vertical stripes.

I like the angolan flag.

Okay, sure, for aesthetics.

But having a flag produces ideology. It creates a reproducible image. An image that can be recuperated, and allow participants to be abstracted and generalized. Weaponized ideology has a body count.

It really weakens the movement. Also, I think wearing your politics (that means displaying flags) is silly. People will abstract you and you have successfully objectified yourself.

Even a plain red flag, is that out of the question?

A red flag is the international sign of socialism, so I don't know. As long as workers keep occupying factories I'm happy. Just don't raise a Stalinist flag :\

Why so many people glorify Stalin is beyond me.

I love your new avatar ^.^

I'm glad you enjoy it aswell!

Yeah, it really baffles me.

I think these people just start with presumptions and then start reading bolsheviks and the like.

Or maybe it's simply a matter of nationalism/chauvinism, I don't know.

I read Lenin for kicks.

The only time I ever bought anything written by Stalin was to get the book out of an anarchist library in my city. I then destroyed it.

He's honestly the worst.

At least Lenin tried to do something good, or at least that's the impression I have of him and Trotsky, they just started acting crazy and stupid a little, but I still have a little respect for them, Stalin just seemed completely buttimperialized.

Lenin for me is more about finding the faults.

I'd read Stalin the same way I would read Hitler or something. It's a joke.

failure

>implying you don't go back in time and inform Marx of some modifcations made to Marxist theory, and begin to discuss other potential modifications to perfect the theory
>implying you don't go back and prevent Stalin from making the mistakes he made or ensure he never becomes general secretary
>implying you don't go back and ensure communist revolution is successful in Germany
>implying you don't go back and tell Mao to modify his policies prevent unintended deaths
>implying you don't go back to prevent Deng taking control

And now you may give me red thumbs.

>implying Mao gave a shit about people dying

Mao expressed his regrets and admitted that there were policy errors that contributed to unnecessary deaths.

Mao said multiple times that he wouldn't give a shit if a majority of the world's population were wiped out in a nuclear war. Here's one such quote:

"I’m not afraid of nuclear war. There are 2.7 billion people in the world; it doesn’t matter if some are killed. China has a population of 600 million; even if half of them are killed, there are still 300 million people left. I’m not afraid of anyone."

Apparently this one was actually aired on Chinese TV, so it wasn't exactly a private sentiment.

He regretted the Great Leap's failure because it was his prized policy, not because those lives meant something to him.

Such a quote could be interpreted a variety of ways. I won't comment until I see the entire speech and can see its context.

Mao said this one at the Moscow Conference in 1957:
the Soviets shouldn't be afraid of nuclear war because "The whole world has 2 billion 700 million people, possibly it will lose a third; or even more, possibly it will lose half … but there will be another half, the imperialists will be hit completely, [and] the whole world will become socialist."

Seems more like Mao's using a badly-thought out analogy for the stupidity of imperialists.

It's like the quote, 'the last capitalist we hang will be the one that sold us the rope'. Although that one's actually quite a clever one.

No, the guy was serious. That was actually his stance on nuclear war. At the Moscow Conference he was criticizing Khrushchev's conciliatory policy with the West when he said that. Mao believed violence was the only way to go about the revolution ("a revolution is not a dinner party") and that the "Western imperialists" could not be negotiated with. Meanwhile the Soviets were concerned with not getting nuked to oblivion, which to Mao was apparently a sign that they lacked ideological commitment.

Forgot to log in, answer on this comment plox.

I haven't heard that. Looked it up, it seems Mao called Khrushchev an "old boot", but I didn't find anything about throwing a boot.

I saw that a long time ago, maybe I misread it.
Or maybe it's maybelline.

Mao now reminds me of that Black Panther fellow that had that little stand off with the police and was then deemed one of the 'baddest motherfuckers' someone else had known. I'm forgetting names.

Anyway, I'm interested in your source, so I can review it myself.

books.google.com/books?id=dl4TRDxqexMC&pg=PA77&lpg=PA77&dq=#v=onepage&q&f=false

Cheers, I'll check it out when I have more time.

And for the most part, it was.

I'm not denying there were deaths, but the number of deaths is exaggerated.

The german revolution was an extension of the Bolshevik one. Keep them turds out of my germany.

Arisaka, haven't you provided me a quote by Rosa Luxemburg criticising the Bolshevik Revolution before?

Yes. Do I remember it?



No :c

They were going a very different path from the Soviet Union, I think. They were very libertarian, and condemned the soviets for their authoritarianism. The worst that could happen would be if the Soviet Union invaded it and replaced their socialism with a russian puppet regime, which would be more likely to happen during stalinism.

The revolution failed because the Germans "failed to hand power over to the soviets".

Regardless of how the Germans did things, the goal was to hand power over to the Bolsheviks. It didn't work out because the SPD refused to work with Bolsheviks.

You meant it was the goal for the bolsheviks or for the german revolutionaries?

German revolutionaries. People were making deals and the like with Trotsky.

in 1919 no one really knew what the fuck was happening in Russia except for people in Russia (hence why you had Bolshevik supporters all over the globe).

But weren't the german revolutionaries mostly from the SPD?

Not all of them!

Then only a part of the revolutionaries had the goal of handing power to the soviets, while the other part didn't want that. Either way, handing power to the bolsheviks would probably as bad or even worse than defeat.

>exactly

Handing power over to the Bolsheviks was Bad. So, the Spartacus League advocated against it. And then Rosa Luxemburg died.

>Implying Mao wasn't a dogmatic chauvinist and would be a great leader if it wasn't for some deaths he was reponsible for.

I can't deny he really did a few good things, and how charismatic he became among the chinese, but my opinion on him remains very negative.

Basically 3D printing is a Pandora's Box of scariness, but we should welcome it. To regulate it means regulation of the communication of ideas, material and digital. You can't limit 3D printing of any sort (guns, sex toys, novelty sculptures) without giving the government the power to limit all communication-related freedoms.

How would a 3d printed gun work anyway? Isn't it still made out of plastic? With nothing inside? Am I not intelligent on this topic?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22421185

those are perfect for quick use (like robbing banks etc.) and because they don't have a serial code no one could track you down from doing it. only downside with them is that they don't have many uses so it would bring more trash.

so why should we ban something that makes it easier to make what we (the white house) have been trying to ban?

sorry for bad grammar, i suck at making complete sentences while i'm still trying to think them

Sure, but as for all guns, there should be licences required.
And yes, printing cars should be allowed, too (not a joke).

whether some think they should or shouldn't be allowed is irrelevant. The only way to for the gov to control printing guns would be to either regulate 3D printers as a whole,which they wont,or regulate the files,which they cant.

That was Cody Wilsons idea when he created this. This is a game changer,were telling them they cant control this anymore,that this debate is over,and that no matter how many laws they pass they cant stop this.

Unless the left is willing to ok a mass regulation of the internet and technology thats going to change life as we know it,its over.

As oxan said, the standard rules that apply to making your own guns. I'm not too concerned, the guns aren't even the best right now

It's something difficult to answer.

I do think that assault weapons and the like should be legal. But then it really comes down to what form of gun control, if any, are we going to introduce? Obviously, if there's no control whatsoever, then the question of should 3D printed guns be allowed or not is superfluous.

But if we have some kind of control in place, and wish to keep it in place, then I guess we shouldn't allow printed guns. Look, I mean. By printing a gun, you're manufacturing it, essentially. The same laws that apply to regular manufacturing and distribution should apply here. Whether or not those laws are what we want is another question.

The whole DJ 4DM1Nistration is obviously pretty nervous about the whole thing. I think it'll be big if they actually release anything. Not as big as Watergate, but pretty big. It will definitely be a big obstacle of Hillary Clinton plans on running in '16

It will be one of the few conspiracies that actually prove true. And still people will call conspiracy theorists whack jobs.

If Obama and Hillary Clinton were republican, they'd be all over it...

Nazi propaganda posters are pretty cool. Somewhat creepy sometimes.

Why did they put a KKK mask on the american robot/monster/thing? Shouldn't they support the KKK?

I'm not even sure if it's a legit thing.

But it's weird and creepy. Maybe the KKK hated ethnic Germans or something.

How can I join it?

It's just a rich people circlejerk. Who cares.

Market socialism?

I agree with valeriya, in principle. Market socialism doesn't solve all our problems. There needs to be planning, whether it be central or decentralised planning.

Revisionism and how it's fucked beyond belief you mean.

Why is revisionism so bad? Or market socialism? Market socialism provides freedom from exploitation, both from a burgeois class or a political class. About revisionism, I oppose many policies from certain revisionists, but aiming for peace is a good thing, right?

Socialism can not co-exist with capitalism in any form, be it markets or state capitalism it always degenerates back into capitalism, my issue is it's one of those things you step slightly of the path and then you realize you've gone a million miles away from the path, I mean seriously look at china originally meant to be a slight shift to capitalism to make compatible with the outside world, ended up going full blown capitalism, sorry to slippery slope but that's what seems to happen when you change things, the issue of a ruling class developing can be solved by purging the party, the bourgeioreuiosudsiusi as well as lumpen can join them as well.

China isn't market socialist, they advertised their system as socialist-oriented market economy or something, market socialism is very different from it. Purges aren't always very effective. In Russia, for example, left-marxists, the most 'puritan' commies were purged and even prosecuted along with anarchists for not agreeing with the party's deviation from communism, while authoritarians, opportunists and others willing to create a ruling class weren't all removed. China also had many purges, yet they managed to become very neoliberal even before Mao died.

It always stalls like this. Just need to wait for something interesting to happen.

Until then, we can have numerous political compass threads ^.^

Maybe we should actually save them this time. A census!

I guess we could make fun of Dennis Rodman, who asked Kim Jong-Un to "do him a solid" and release the American they have there:

nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/51816121/ns/sports-nba/

"the Supreme Leader of North Korea or as I call him `Kim'"
It's funny because that's his surname.

Haha, oh wow.

That reminds me of the random American than DPRK's Twitter account follows. They only follow three accounts, and one is some random guy ^.^

That twitter thing pisses me off so much. It wasn't even racist. A black soccer player was injured, and a guy was celebrating. Not because of race, because he didn't like him. People talk shit about athletes all the time. Look at Derrick Rose. He's getting the most shit, yet no one's arresting him. Fuck Britain's government.

Ah. That's bullshit.

To clarify, I believe you, but that entire incident is a load of shit. Fuck UK

Political correctness is such a weird term.

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Politics.

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)


Let's get to it.

Politics are... great, I guess. Cool avatar, by the way.

Thanks. It was a gift. From you.

But yeah, politics are... fun? ... radical? ... neat? I don't really know.

That Gif. My Sides.

But yeah, I don't know either.

Its all about power,power should not be concentrated in the few who run the government,but it should be available to all of us regardless of occupation,gender,race,and social status.

Besides the argument that if we make guns easily accessible everyone would start killing each other and we will devolve into anarchy is government propagated nonsense to keep us all cataloged and in line.

If I gave you one of my guns,would you start killing people with it?

Eh, I'm not too concerned. What what I heard, two or three shots and the frame starts breaking. Not a viable weapon for any sort of shooting. Just a novelty, and a toy. When shit gets more serious, and better guns are available, we might have to do more, but right now, we're fine.

Its a single shot gun,
with the reliability of the Chauchat, (French WW1 machine gun that after three shots, jammed so much it was labeled the worst gun ever)
is as about as lethal of a large rock (Seriously kitchen knives are deadlier)
Has the range of a throwing knife
And the cost of 4000 Us dollars plus 50 maybe more+ Tax (The combined value of 3-4 AR15s)
With possible decreases in price in the next....10-20 years?

Seriously. Everyone quit freaking out just because its a gun.

It's a single shot gun
So? You only need one shot.

with the reliability of the Chauchat, (French WW1 machine gun that after three shots, jammed so much it was labeled the worst gun ever)
Great it's a shitty gun, it is still a fully working gun that anyone can dowload for free of the internet.

It is as lethal of a large rock & has the range of a throwing knife
Even a .22 LR shot can do damnage and even kill someone young if it hits them in the head.

And the cost of 4000 Us dollars plus 50 maybe more+ TaxWith and possible decreases in price in the next....10-20 years?
I can find one at Staples for 1300 bucks. And prices useually drops around 3-4 years.

Think about this: In the year 2013 anyone with acces to a 3D printer will be able to print and manufacture a handgun in their own home.

One shot, you can miss at longer ranges and at close range it is still as about a deadly as a knife (Which can be made undetectable by x-rays)
Cross bows are more dangerous than this gun.

Sure if, (Big if) it hits someone it could (Could) kill them if it hit them in vital targets but with one shot it has limited killing power.

But can it make the same gun? I am doubtful. and prices might go down? (Might) You still need the better up models to make the gun. And if in a few years they can make guns cheaper? So what?

Tell me what could possibly makes this weapon somehow more dangerous than weapons kids have access to and a clear and present threat to society? And then what is the solution? Censorship of transfer of files on the internet? That's Sopa talk you fascist.

The gun was simply a "I told you I could" thing.

Yes we all saw a dose of buckly but doesn't understand what this is.

it's the concept that's significant

Exactly. Libtards Libtards everywhere

I think it will greatly affect places like the UK that have a crime problem but simply don't have guns. We'll see how violent that place really is compared to the US.

It'd be funny because they'd probably ban or limit accessibility to 3d printers knowing brits.

Eh, it's not like anyone can easily get a 3D printer, anyway.